Pages

Monday, June 25, 2012

Tips for the Prosecution: Jerry Sandusky

By Roger A. Canaff

Editor's note: Roger Canaff's following post was written on June 7, and since then the prosecutors were able to get their conviction of Jerry Sandusky. Roger's advice is excellent and it's interesting to look back on the trial to see how many of the following points were used.

June 7, 2012

The lead prosecutor in the Sandusky case, Senior Deputy AG
Joseph E. McGettigan, probably doesn't need my help. He began his career at the
Philadelphia DA's office around the time I turned 15, and he's done and seen it
all. But if he's as good as his reputation, then he's probably the type who
never treats the opinion of a fellow professional as beneath him. The good ones, like the legendary Dan
McCarthy I wrote about a few months ago, are never too egotistical to listen.

My hope is that McGattigan's team stays focused on five
basic tasks that often make the difference in child sex cases:

1. Have a theme, and weave it through the entire case. This,
they are doing well so far. A theme in a criminal case is a psychological
anchor that you want the jury to be repeating- literally- in deliberations.
It's a phrase, a quote (often from a victim) that captures in essence the
wrongness of what was done. It needs to be woven into every aspect of the trial
where it can be uttered; voir dire, opening, direct examinations, and closing
argument.

2. Craft direct examinations of the victims to recreate the
reality of the crime. Crafting a direct means much more than writing out the
questions and prepping based on them. It's taking victims through sensory
detail- smells, sounds, physical sensations- that drives home the reality so
that jurors won't gloss over it or accept defense arguments that it was
concocted. This works only when victims
are treated with dignity, support and compassion. Thankfully, it's also the
right thing to do.

3. Appeal to common sense and fight myths. The defense's strategy is to appeal to
oft-cited but baseless myths. They'll suggest Mike McQueary didn't see a child
being raped because he didn't intervene. But the idea that even most of us
would intervene in a situation like that is preposterous. It's tempting to say
"I would have beaten Sandusky and saved the boy," but the fact is
none of us know how we'll react until we face a traumatic event. Ask any combat
veteran.

They'll suggest the kids McQueary and the custodian before
him saw being raped don't exist because they haven't come forward. Nonsense-
very few child victims ever report, and if the children in question are aware
of the case and haven't come forward, it's for common sense reasons. They'll
suggest the victims are lying for a civil payoff, or because they are
"troubled." Garbage. "Troubled" is why Sandusky targeted
them through Second Mile- they were less likely to report or be believed. The idea that its typical for individuals to
falsify allegations and endure the the process of criminal litigation for money
or spite is baseless. It almost never
happens, least of all in male on male cases. Finally, to suggest that three
high ranking officials at PSU would never have acted as they did when facing
allegations that threaten the football program is laughable.

4. Corroboration.
This is not a "he said-she said" case; indeed, any good sex
crimes prosecutor knows there is no such thing. As a mentor Victor Vieth taught
me years ago, there is always corroboration if investigators and prosecutors
are willing to think creatively and then dig for it. Witness' memories- when
the witnesses are handled correctly- are goldmines of information that can be
independently verified. In any event, victims are carrying enough of a burden
during the litigation process. No case should rest solely on the testimony of a
victim; this is unnecessary and the sign of a sloppy, lazy prosecution.

5. Point. While I wish I could say I learned this on the
job, I read it in Scott Turow's Presumed Innocent long before I had a law
degree. In it, Turow's protagonist describes a whiskey-breathing, grizzled vet
of an ADA who suggested it to him. I never failed to implement it. Point at the
defendant when you make your opening statement and your closing argument. Point
at him, look him in the eye, and approach as far as the judge will allow.
"If you don't have the courage to point, you can't expect them to have the
courage to convict."

Godspeed, Mr. McGattigan and team.

A widely known child protection and anti-violence against women advocate, legal expert, author and public speaker, Roger Canaff has devoted his legal career to the eradication of violence against women and children.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Disclaimer

The opinions and information expressed in the individual posts do not necessarily reflect the opinions of each contributor of "Time's Up!" nor the opinion of the blog owner and administrator. The comments are the opinion and property of the individuals who leave them on the posts and do not express the opinion of the authors, contributors or the blog owner and administrator.